Discussion:
[OT] Hey, Quaddie, this might be dumb, but...
(too old to reply)
Chrysi Cat
2020-04-09 08:14:53 UTC
Permalink
...considering we apparently have finally managed to convince even /you/
that your 'vatgirl' plan would be a very bad idea, what about adding
extra women only *part* of whom is created in a laboratory?

Admittedly, it's anecdata, but it seems from my interactions with other
straight MtF folk that the vast majority of us spent our tweens and
teens either wishing we could bear children, or sore that we couldn't,
or both on alternate days or weeks. That's a supply of girls who /want/
husbands and likely can't be /quite/ as picky as their cis-ters, unless
I'm mistaken. Though admittedly, some might doubt our maternal
/instincts/, if such a thing really does exist in the greater
cisgendered female community.

If we could grow whole women, we could probably take the genetic codes
of the girls in equivalent situations in their present-day (our future,
hopefully the _near_ future), substitute their fathers' X chromosome for
the Y (or in a few weird circumstances be surprised that there's already
a full second X with an annoying hang-around SRY Gene), and culture a
reproductive system. Not sure if the better way is to implant it
whole--which I'd assume would leave reasonable scars even in an era of
most surgery done with scopes--or to try to grow it in-situ, though.

So now the question becomes, "how many closeted straight transgirls are
there, who only ARE because social conservatism means that only the ones
who are the most nearly-driven-insane by living in a boy's role
transition even AFTER puberty, let alone before?"
Or more pointedly, do you think there are enough of them to fill out
those roles that your vatgirls would be needed for, or at least decrease
both the demand and the perceived demand significantly to the point
where only guys who REALLY want to be single remain so?

It would seem that if social conservatism had switched from "grow where
your god planted" you mode, to working on this, around 1980 or so, we
might already be in the position where my peers would be dangerously
close to aiding in overpopulating the planet (I'd probably have been out
of the running myself--hopefully BEFORE I would have fallen pregnant, as
I really can't take care of a house for MYSELF for more than a week let
alone raise a family--but being sufficiently incapable of personal care
is rare among anyone, "even" transpeople).

Though I will admit, a lot of my peers and probably myself as well are
now at the point where we simply despise social conservatism on its
'merits', rather than just becuase it had no place for us, as was the
reason we started drifting left. But, going into devil's-advocate mode
because I can't countenance working with fascism personally, what do you
think you would get out of the /current/ generation of transgirls being
raised socially conservative if you promised them they could be mothers?
I think you might even get a larger number than cisgirls who'd volunteer
to be kept "barefoot and pregnant", and that might not even change when
/their/ children came of age, if there was knowledge that birth-biology
was no longer destiny. You might even split the LGB and T portions quite
devastatingly, as I know a good portion of us _got_ to the Left _after_
we found that only LGB had any home for us (though at the same time,
I'll also admit I believe even fewer Kinsey 0s exist than Kinsey 6s, and
I feel that female MINDS are particularly likely to have some bi
tendencies). TransMEN would likely holler bloody murder, though, as you
particularly might consider them to be a problem that negates whatever
(surprisingly-large) crossover effect the girls would have.

Thoughts?
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Quadibloc
2020-04-09 15:54:58 UTC
Permalink
I have nothing against allowint trans people to lead more complete lives through
improvements in medical science.

But I would only expect that to have benefits for them as individuals, not to
materially affect any problems involving society at large.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-04-09 18:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
...considering we apparently have finally managed to convince even /you/
that your 'vatgirl' plan would be a very bad idea, what about adding
extra women only *part* of whom is created in a laboratory?
Admittedly, it's anecdata, but it seems from my interactions with other
straight MtF folk that the vast majority of us spent our tweens and
teens either wishing we could bear children, or sore that we couldn't,
or both on alternate days or weeks. That's a supply of girls who /want/
husbands and likely can't be /quite/ as picky as their cis-ters, unless
I'm mistaken. Though admittedly, some might doubt our maternal
/instincts/, if such a thing really does exist in the greater
cisgendered female community.
If we could grow whole women, we could probably take the genetic codes
of the girls in equivalent situations in their present-day (our future,
hopefully the _near_ future), substitute their fathers' X chromosome for
the Y (or in a few weird circumstances be surprised that there's already
a full second X with an annoying hang-around SRY Gene), and culture a
reproductive system. Not sure if the better way is to implant it
whole--which I'd assume would leave reasonable scars even in an era of
most surgery done with scopes--or to try to grow it in-situ, though.
So now the question becomes, "how many closeted straight transgirls are
there, who only ARE because social conservatism means that only the ones
who are the most nearly-driven-insane by living in a boy's role
transition even AFTER puberty, let alone before?"
Or more pointedly, do you think there are enough of them to fill out
those roles that your vatgirls would be needed for, or at least decrease
both the demand and the perceived demand significantly to the point
where only guys who REALLY want to be single remain so?
It would seem that if social conservatism had switched from "grow where
your god planted" you mode, to working on this, around 1980 or so, we
might already be in the position where my peers would be dangerously
close to aiding in overpopulating the planet (I'd probably have been out
of the running myself--hopefully BEFORE I would have fallen pregnant, as
I really can't take care of a house for MYSELF for more than a week let
alone raise a family--but being sufficiently incapable of personal care
is rare among anyone, "even" transpeople).
Though I will admit, a lot of my peers and probably myself as well are
now at the point where we simply despise social conservatism on its
'merits', rather than just becuase it had no place for us, as was the
reason we started drifting left. But, going into devil's-advocate mode
because I can't countenance working with fascism personally, what do you
think you would get out of the /current/ generation of transgirls being
raised socially conservative if you promised them they could be mothers?
I think you might even get a larger number than cisgirls who'd volunteer
to be kept "barefoot and pregnant", and that might not even change when
/their/ children came of age, if there was knowledge that birth-biology
was no longer destiny. You might even split the LGB and T portions quite
devastatingly, as I know a good portion of us _got_ to the Left _after_
we found that only LGB had any home for us (though at the same time,
I'll also admit I believe even fewer Kinsey 0s exist than Kinsey 6s, and
I feel that female MINDS are particularly likely to have some bi
tendencies). TransMEN would likely holler bloody murder, though, as you
particularly might consider them to be a problem that negates whatever
(surprisingly-large) crossover effect the girls would have.
Thoughts?
We do grow whole women. Takes about nine months for the first stage.
The second stage is variable from 15 to 25 years.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2020-04-09 21:18:30 UTC
Permalink
I wanted Quads to become a woman as a step to create
the female surplus that he claimed is required.
Well, I didn't specifically want him to do it,
I wanted him to acknowledge that according to his
logic, he should. Whether he acted on the belief,
I don't know.
p***@hotmail.com
2020-04-10 00:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
...considering we apparently have finally managed to convince even /you/
that your 'vatgirl' plan would be a very bad idea, what about adding
extra women only *part* of whom is created in a laboratory?
Admittedly, it's anecdata, but it seems from my interactions with other
straight MtF folk that the vast majority of us spent our tweens and
teens either wishing we could bear children, or sore that we couldn't,
or both on alternate days or weeks. That's a supply of girls who /want/
husbands and likely can't be /quite/ as picky as their cis-ters, unless
I'm mistaken. Though admittedly, some might doubt our maternal
/instincts/, if such a thing really does exist in the greater
cisgendered female community.
If we could grow whole women, we could probably take the genetic codes
of the girls in equivalent situations in their present-day (our future,
hopefully the _near_ future), substitute their fathers' X chromosome for
the Y (or in a few weird circumstances be surprised that there's already
a full second X with an annoying hang-around SRY Gene), and culture a
reproductive system. Not sure if the better way is to implant it
whole--which I'd assume would leave reasonable scars even in an era of
most surgery done with scopes--or to try to grow it in-situ, though.
So now the question becomes, "how many closeted straight transgirls are
there, who only ARE because social conservatism means that only the ones
who are the most nearly-driven-insane by living in a boy's role
transition even AFTER puberty, let alone before?"
Or more pointedly, do you think there are enough of them to fill out
those roles that your vatgirls would be needed for, or at least decrease
both the demand and the perceived demand significantly to the point
where only guys who REALLY want to be single remain so?
It would seem that if social conservatism had switched from "grow where
your god planted" you mode, to working on this, around 1980 or so, we
might already be in the position where my peers would be dangerously
close to aiding in overpopulating the planet (I'd probably have been out
of the running myself--hopefully BEFORE I would have fallen pregnant, as
I really can't take care of a house for MYSELF for more than a week let
alone raise a family--but being sufficiently incapable of personal care
is rare among anyone, "even" transpeople).
Though I will admit, a lot of my peers and probably myself as well are
now at the point where we simply despise social conservatism on its
'merits', rather than just becuase it had no place for us, as was the
reason we started drifting left. But, going into devil's-advocate mode
because I can't countenance working with fascism personally, what do you
think you would get out of the /current/ generation of transgirls being
raised socially conservative if you promised them they could be mothers?
I think you might even get a larger number than cisgirls who'd volunteer
to be kept "barefoot and pregnant", and that might not even change when
/their/ children came of age, if there was knowledge that birth-biology
was no longer destiny. You might even split the LGB and T portions quite
devastatingly, as I know a good portion of us _got_ to the Left _after_
we found that only LGB had any home for us (though at the same time,
I'll also admit I believe even fewer Kinsey 0s exist than Kinsey 6s, and
I feel that female MINDS are particularly likely to have some bi
tendencies). TransMEN would likely holler bloody murder, though, as you
particularly might consider them to be a problem that negates whatever
(surprisingly-large) crossover effect the girls would have.
Thoughts?
Another approach would be to develop the uterine replicator, commonly
associated with Lois McMaster Bujold but going back at least to Aldous
Huxley's _Brave New World_. These could be publicly funded. I believe
that several countries pay for in-vitro fertilization and other medical
assistance to reproduction.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

Loading...